Democratic Victory in 1860

[M E Wolf]

Dear Trice/Tim and List Members,

Excellent post and good numbers--helps make a foundation for thought without swaying it.

That said, I would also proffer that there had been great numbers of immigrants that came from the 'old country' like the Irish, who were escaping a their own version of tyranny - as well as Prussian, French, Swedish and Spanish. How the experiences of these Immigrants who accepted citizenship and were allowed to vote; may have swung the vote in any direction- pro or con against any particular person and or party.

That said, most European Immigrants had no experiences with Democracy; to which coming to understand it--the power given to them as a person, with a say in government--that power most likely was guarded with white knuckled determination that what they left their home country, family---friends; was not to be a repeat here in the USA.

How each canidate speaks to the voter has importance; we see this today. Yet, not all good public speakers make great presidents and or political office holder. And, sometimes lousy public speakers make better presidents. But, in the 1850-1860- the long track record of parties would not been so important to the new voter with a European background--they were 'in the present' and wanted a course for 'in the future' that would give an immigrant a better place to be.

The 'freedoms' here in the USA was worth fighting for--and, the immigrants made their choices. Some South -- Some North.

As far as voting goes--this influx of immigrants could have pushed the vote towards Lincoln very easily. It could have pushed the vote the other direction as well but--the people of those times have spoken. And, women not having a vote--could have swayed votes in many ways in of itself to either side.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

[trice]

Originally Posted by cedarstripper

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate on this a bit? Thanks

Generally, Southern extremists had been threatening to secede if a President not aligned with their interests and goals was elected. This had been certainly true in 1856 with Fremont for the Republicans, and was true again in 1860. There was also much of that type of talk whenever there was a national election or a sectional crisis for quite some time.

Tim

[trice]

Originally Posted by timewalker

What would a Democratic win in 1860 have done with regard to extension of slavery into the territories? Would popular sovereignty continued as the rule? Would not this lead to inevitable clashes in the territories?

The fire-eaters were not going to settle for anything less than full extension of slavery into the territories and full enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act. How would this have played out with a Democratic administration in 1860?

What kind of compromise could have been reached? I almost see a Democratic victory in 1860 leading to a NORTHERN secessionist movement.

Had the Democrats won the Presidency in 1860 (probably also controlling both houses of Congress), the situation is pretty close to what it was under Buchanan. But the question of who would be elected becomes very important.

Let's say Douglas was the new President. He was an impressive man, and a dedicated Unionist. The Democrats needed a Northern face on the ticket to win, IMHO, someone to fight for IL, IN, PA and NJ. But he also died June 3, 1861 from typhoid fever and throat cancer. Who would his Vice President have been?

Possibly Breckinridge. He might have been the best choice. He was young, already with four years in that office, popular in the South, respected in the North, from a Border State.

Possibly Bell, who led a ticket that won KY even though Breckinridge, a Kentuckian, was running. He had strong support in VA and TN as well.

Possibly one of the men who held high office in the Confederacy would have run as VP. I doubt Davis would have run, but maybe Stephens. The Democrats needed someone from the South to hold the ticket together.

So it is quite likely that by mid-1861 whoever was VP would be President -- and a whole new uproar would start. How that man acted would have shaped and molded the next four years.

The very first issue to be resolved is the admission of Kansas, still pending in January 1861 as the new Congress took office. Only after Senators and Congressmen from the seceding states withdrew was Kansas admitted, and it is quite likely to have been the major fight in Congress in Spring 1861 -- and maybe in the Fall if no compromise was found.

But in order to win, the Democrats would have to give something to Northern voters as well. Some change in the tariff was inevitable, both to finance the government and to appease PA voters and interests. If the slave state block is not prepared to be sensible on the Morrill Tariff, either the Democrats don't get elected or Northern Democrats will be breaking from the party line to represent their constitutents (i.e., to get elected again).

The flood of new Supreme Court appointments will also be a contentious bone.

In short, the early 1860s will look a lot like the 1850s. Whether it would be better or worse depends on what the leadership did with it.

Tim

[cedarstripper]

Originally Posted by trice

Generally, Southern extremists had been threatening to secede if a President not aligned with their interests and goals was elected. This had been certainly true in 1856 with Fremont for the Republicans, and was true again in 1860. There was also much of that type of talk whenever there was a national election or a sectional crisis for quite some time

Thanks for the reply. I'm aware of all that - its just not what I got from the remark the first time around. After reading it again, I see what OpnDownFall was saying. My thinking got off on a tangent of Lincoln not being on the ballot in ten southern states, the Charleston Convention, etc.

Cedarstripper